CLD-022 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 14-3576
___________
IN RE: JAMES C. PLATTS,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
(Related to W.D. Pa. Crim. No. 2:10-cr-00176-001)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
October 30, 2014
Before: FUENTES, GREENAWAY, JR. and VANASKIE, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: November 13, 2014)
_________
OPINION*
_________
PER CURIAM
Pro se petitioner James Platts has filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking to
have this Court quash what he describes as an “unlawfully obtained indictment.” We will
deny the petition.
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.
In October 2011, Platts pleaded guilty to multiple counts of mail fraud, money
laundering, and conspiracy. The District Court sentenced him to 46 months of
imprisonment. Although Platts waived his appellate and collateral challenge rights in his
plea agreement, he appealed. We granted the Government’s motion to enforce the
appellate waiver and summarily affirmed on that basis. See United States v. Platts, C.A.
No. 12-2327 (order entered Jan. 11, 2013). Since then, Platts has filed a steady stream of
post-conviction motions in the District Court and mandamus petitions in this Court.
In this mandamus petition, Platts claims that the indictment was unlawfully obtained “by
federal employees by the misrepresentation of an invalid, incomplete and unauthorized
form.”
Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy. See Kerr v. United States Dist. Ct., 426
U.S. 394, 402 (1976). To obtain mandamus relief, a petitioner must establish that “(1) no
other adequate means exist to attain the relief he desires, (2) the party’s right to issuance
of the writ is clear and indisputable, and (3) the writ is appropriate under the
circumstances.” Hollingsworth v. Perry, 558 U.S. 183, 190 (2010) (per curiam) (internal
quotation marks, alteration omitted).
We have admonished Platts on several occasions that he may not use a mandamus
petition as a substitute for the appeals process, see In re Briscoe, 448 F.3d 201, 212 (3d
Cir. 2006), and noted that he has already pursued an appeal of his conviction. See, e.g.,
In re Platts, C.A. No. 14-1410, 565 F. App’x 85, 87 (3d Cir. May 5, 2014). While
expressing no opinion in that matter regarding whether Platts can overcome the collateral
2
attack waiver in his plea agreement, we explained that a motion filed pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2255 is the presumptive means to challenge the validity of a conviction or
sentence. See Okereke v. United States, 307 F.3d 117, 120 (3d Cir. 2002). Platts
thereafter filed a § 2255 motion in the District Court. The District Court recently
dismissed that motion and Platts has filed an appeal. See C.A. No. 14-4128. Platts will
have an opportunity to challenge the District Court’s disposition of his § 2255 motion in
that appeal.
Accordingly, Platts is not entitled to mandamus relief, and we will deny this
petition.
3